The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1887-04-29

MARRIED WoMEN's RIauTs.-The de-
cision of the Supreme Court filed to night
in the case Of Aultman, Taylor & Co. ct
al. VS.. j. N. Rush and Eugenia J. Rush,
will make great sensation in the State
and unscttlc many business transactions.
Il is to tho effect that married woman
cannot mortgage her separate estate for
the debt Of her husband or any other per-
son. The decision is very long one and
cannot be copied tonight, but hatty
scanning Of it enables the Bureau to fur.
nish the following outline:
The action was founded on two notes
given by defendant aud his wife for the
purchase cf steam engine. These notes
were secured by q mortgage on tract of
mud bssdSsias. .;1n ihaSssp sspsssssssstssssSsp
the wife, which mortgage was executed By
the wife, her husband joining therein.
Two defcnces were put up: First, breach
OF contract second, no liability on the
part of the wife on tho notes and mort
gage, she being a married woman. The
master of equity, to whom the case was
referred, reported that there was no breach
Of the contrac. In this report the Circuit
Judge (Hudson) coucurred. The master
also reported the defendants wife liable,
both by the terms of tho statute and be-
cause tho contract was for the benefit of
her separate estate. The Circuit Judge
did not concur in the last branch of this
second section of the report, but sustained
the master in the first, holding that the
liability of the wifo was fixed by the mort
gage, and he ordered foreclosure.
The Supreme Court says: The main
question in tho case is as to tho liability
of the wife on her mortgage, or rather,
the liability Of her separate estate for q
debt contracted by her husband, to which
she was party, aud to secure which she
executed the mortgage in question, al-
though the said debt was not contracted
for the benefit of her separate estate. This
brings up squarely the question whether a
married woman can mortgage her separate
estate for debt not contracted for its
benefit y The boundary of the
| question is the Constitution and the Act oil
the Legislature upon the subject of the
rights of married women The Court
then proceeds to examine at length the
constitutional provisions contained in Ar.
ticle II, Section 8, as follows: 'The rea
and personal property of a married woman
held at the time Of her marriage, or thai
which she may thereafter acquire, either
by gift, grant, inheritance, devils, or other
wise, shall not be subject to levy and sale
for her husbands debts, but shall be hclG
as her separate property and may be be
qucathed, devised or alienatcd by her tht
same as if she were unmarried The pro
visions of Inv touching upon the question
are also exhaustively discussed and tn,
Court decides that the married woman ba
not the right to mortgage her separate es
tate for debt not contracted for its bene
fit. The judgment of tho Supreme Cour
IS that the judgment of the Circuit Cour
be revised and that the case be remande,
with leave to plaintiff to apply below 70
: Judgment against the defendant; j. N
, Rush for the amount due on the note
/ Chief Justice Simpson delivered the opiu
ion. Justice McIver files dissentip
? opinion.
The practice of having wife's separat
r estate mOrtgaged to secure her husband
debts has been very prevalent
South Carolina and this decision will u,
e get il ahrnntlv